Economics, Politics, and Hunting

In 2006, about 5% of the American adult population hunted. This number is
a 4% decline from 2001 and a consequent 3% reduction in hunting-related
expenditures. The trend is part of a two-decades decline in hunting numbers,
but this is not the only important statistic. Although 5% of the American
population hunted, there is a strong, interlinked network of economic
support for hunting that includes the firearms and sporting goods industry,
conservationists, and government entities like the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW).
Furthermore, the financial dependence and institutional centrality of
hunting for the DNR and DFW mean they are not responsive to democratic
demand but rather are merely the state arm of the pro-hunting lobby. A sober
account of the financial assets of the hunting industry is necessary if we
are to effectively understand the power it may exert over policy and public
opinion.

The Hunting Economy

In 2009, companies that produce, distribute, or sell hunting firearms and
supplies made roughly $28 billion, up from just over $19 billion the
previous year. (This number does not include indirect spending on
transportation, lodging, and permits.)

One 2002 study found that hunting and fishing supported around 15,000
jobs and contributed $1.5 billion to the Colorado economy, with at least
$332 million coming from trip and equipment expenditures from out-of-state
hunters. Not only do out-of-state hunters bring in “new” money to Colorado’s
economy, they also spend more per day than do residents.

The Michigan DNR estimates that hunters contribute $1.3 billion to the
state's economy annually, and $153 million in tax revenue.

Numbers like these possess figurative currency for the hunting industry,
and if we wish to effectively combat hunting as an activity, we must
recognize that our battle is not simply with a cultural tradition but with a
billion-dollar industry. It is not merely ideologically or hobby-driven
resistance that can maintain hunting activity, but also economic and
financially-driven resistance.

Government Funding

An important facet to hunting policy is the fact that government agencies
such as the DNR—while charged with regulating hunting activity—are dependent
on it for funds in the form of hunting permits and firearms sales. The New
Hampshire Fish & Game Department, for example, receives 70 percent of its
conservation funding from hunting/fishing sales. Additional revenue comes
from taxes on equipment and firearm purchases allocated specifically to
wildlife management and hunter safety programs. This economic dependence
(combined with a long history of defending hunting for its purported
ecological benefits) means that government institutions have a vested
interest in continued regulated hunting.

Conservation and Hunting

While the economic ties between government "conservation" institutions
and hunters is a serious issue, it must be remembered that the management of
wildlife for the exploitation of humans is the expressed purpose of these
organizations. The mission of the Arizona Game and Fish Department is to
"conserve, enhance, and restore Arizona’s diverse wildlife resources and
habitats through aggressive protection and management programs, and to
provide wildlife resources and safe watercraft and off-highway vehicle
recreation for the enjoyment, appreciation, and use by present and future
generations" (emphasis added).

The problem is not merely that institutions charged with maintaining the
"wilderness" of the community are financially dependent on those who desire
to kill and maim that land's animal inhabitants; the problem is that the
very existence of these institutions is created in order to facilitate the
killing and maiming of the land's animal inhabitants. Thus, it is crucial
that we understand the DNR, DFW, and other such groups, not as ostensibly
independent agencies with financial incentives to support hunting, but
rather as the government arm of the hunting movement. As a recent study
showed, the general public's choices for which animals should be added to
the Endangered Species list were consistently more threatened than those
selected by the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. This suggests that the
DFW either possesses less technical expertise on wildlife than the general
public, or simply does not prioritize species protection.

This is not to suggest that the money flowing to these organizations is
unimportant--to the contrary, it makes it all the more crucial to oppose
their pro-hunting agenda. But it is worth noting that removing from these
institutions the responsibility of helping people hunt would be a
fundamental shift in their purpose--a shift that would likely be staunchly
opposed by its staff.

Non-Hunting Wildlife Economies

However, there is another side to this story.

The aforementioned Colorado study found that wildlife watching produced
$940 million and supported 13,000 jobs, and, like hunters, visitors who came
to the state for wildlife watching also spent more per day than their
residential counterparts. The Michigan DNR also cited $2.7 billion--more
than double that of hunting--in "wildlife viewing" activity. Wildlife
viewing trumps violence on the national level as well, taking in $45.7
billion in 2006, more than fishing ($42.2 billion) and almost double hunting
($22.9 billion). This is evidence that violence against animals is not the
only viable way for a state’s ecology to grow the economy, and suggests that
increased emphasis on wildlife viewing rather than wildlife hunting could
increase revenue.

Profit can also come from increased savings, and attempting to define
"wildlife preservation" as preservation for the sake of animals can
sometimes make economic sense. For example, allocating funds for wildlife
corridors that connect habitats previously divided by human development
(like roads) could reduce the up to 1.5 million wildlife-vehicle collisions
that occur annually in the United States, killing about 200 people with an
average vehicle repair cost of $2,000.

Conclusion

What can we draw from this information to help us better mobilize and
affect hunting policy and popular opinion? Government organizations
concerned with "conservation" or "wildlife management" must always be
understood to be at best highly biased against hunting restrictions,
and--more likely--as merely another branch of the hunting lobby. As such,
any discussion of hunting policy should have an economic component. The
ability to sell a policy as financially beneficial (or at least neutral)
could be crucial in blunting the argument that hunting helps the economy and
increases tax revenue.

Drew Winter is an award-winning organizer and writer. Named one of the
top 20 animal advocates under 30 by VegNews, Drew led Michigan State
University’s animal rights group in successful campaigns to kick animal
circuses off campus and bring more vegan options to the dining halls. He has
also given talks on animal rights philosophy. After graduating, Drew handed
out over ten thousand pamphlets at colleges across the Midwest with Vegan
Outreach, and later worked as a grassroots organizer with peta2. Drew hopes
to pursue a PhD in Anthropology or Sociology to better understand social
movements and increase activists' effectiveness.

Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.